User:Robert McClenon/ArbCom Thoughts

ArbCom should avoid either hearing too many cases, in which case the arbitrators do not have time to consider each case with adequate deliberation, or hearing too few cases, so that conduct issues concerning editors or topic areas continue to trouble or divide the community. It is my opinion that ArbCom can and should hear somewhat more cases than it currently does, and in particular that ArbCom should accept cases that are referred to it by the community from WP:ANI, and ArbCom should let it be known that it will accept such cases. Occasionally a dispute at WP:ANI that involves both conduct and content becomes a great monster with tentacles. The community should have the option of referring the matter to ArbCom rather than finding an admin or panel of admins to try to extract consensus from a monster. This does not mean that ArbCom should go looking for trouble, but that ArbCom should let it be known that the community can bring their trouble to ArbCom.

The English Wikipedia ArbCom, the English Wikipedia community, and English Wikipedia admins are responsible for enforcing the Universal Code of Conduct, and ArbCom should establish that we enforce the UCOC, because otherwise either the WMF's Trust and Safety, which is unaccountable and inscrutable, or the WMF's emerging ArbCom, will intervene to enforce them on us.

Long Block Logs

A few Wikipedia editors have long block logs, sometimes including some relatively long blocks, of more than a week, sometimes escalating. The reasons for these block logs are sometimes varied, but typically include incivility. These editors sometimes divide the community, with both supporters and opponents. The supporters often say that the editors are excellent content creators. Their opponents often say that they are net negatives to Wikipedia, and that the harm that they do outweighs the benefit that they provide. Sometimes these editors are eventually banned (or de facto banned by being indefinitely blocked). Sometimes they eventually go away, either because they exit in a huff and are not asked to come back, or because they tire of the conflict that they were involved in.

It is my opinion that ArbCom should consider cases involving editors with long block logs. If they continue to accumulate blocks, the community is not dealing effectively with them, at least not without instructions from ArbCom. Editors with long block logs may be net negatives to the community, but if such an editor has a group of friends, the community as a whole will not be able to remove the troublesome editor, and the deliberative process of arbitration is needed. Alternatively, an editor may have a long block log because they are being taunted or bothered by a few other editors. In such cases, the deliberative process of arbitration may impose interaction bans, or may even punish the tormentors. Another possibility is that the editor needs to be restricted by a topic-ban.

If an editor has a long block log and divides the community, the quasi-judicial process of ArbCom may be the least undesirable approach.

Infoboxes

Infobox disputes continue to divide the community. Disputes are not just cases that go to WP:ANI, Arbitration Enforcement, or Requests for Arbitration. Disputes include any question that has to be resolved by RFC rather than by discussion alone. The divisiveness of infobox cases is shown by the opposition of some editors to an infobox for one of the greatest classical composers. The RFC does not show evidence of disruptive editing or incivility, but I haven't read the prior talk page discussion. I know that some opponents of infoboxes have edited disruptively, and it was primarily but not entirely the opponents of infoboxes whose behavior made sanctions necessary. I have six thoughts about further action to reduce infobox wars. First, any WikiProject, including WP:WikiProject Classical Music should be encouraged to adopt a guideline that an infobox is the norm for C-Class articles. Second, if specific editors are problematic, the contentious topics procedure should be used to topic-ban them from infobox discussion. In general, there are a few difficult editors, some opposing infoboxes, and some supporting them, and existing remedies are available. Third, the guidelines on infoboxes should be revisited de novo. Fourth, music disputes are too common in both the areas of popular music and classical music, probably because the editors are passionate about their love of the music. Maybe editors should listen to music when angry rather than editing when angry. Fifth, as part of the de novo review of the guidelines on infoboxes, WikiProjects should be encouraged to establish guidelines for when infoboxes are in order for articles in their areas, to minimize the need for RFCs. Sixth, ArbCom should be willing to review the history of editors with long block logs who have been involved in infobox wars.